See, Holder, as head of the DOJ, got paid his salary forwhile illegally providing guns to Mexican drug cartels. Ergo, the logic follows that ALL of his personal assets (house, cars, money, etc…anything he ever bought while employed by DOJ.gov) should be seized as ‘suspected proceeds’ from his gun running as being material aid to/complicity with drug suppliers.

That’s not entirely true, although the reality isn’t much more comforting. There generally must be a hearing where the owner of a forfeited asset can contest the matter, although it’s not clear how long the police can delay such a hearing (see the Alvarez mess). Even better, it’s not the property owner on trial: the state is technically suing the property itself, leading to such fun cases as United States vs. A Hotel. And because it’s a property thing, the case can go through internal arbitration or other court systems where there’s a presumption of guilt.

So, you can get it back, it’s just very difficult and very time-consuming.

It’s a crime only for the cash. This is all about seizing assets, generally no action is taken against the person holding it (except of course the taking of their cash), based on some very old and suspect presidents.